The Evolving Unit Assessment System
A History of the Development of Systemic
Assessment in the
The unit, with the involvement of its
professional community, is implementing an assessment system that reflects the
conceptual framework(s) and incorporates candidate proficiencies outlined in
professional and state standards. The developing Unit Assessment System (UAS)
demonstrates the unit’s belief that it must be reflective of the educational
environment in which and for whom the plan is implemented. This process for the review of candidate
preparation at
·
School
of Education: Dean, Director of Teacher
Education Student Services, Department Head of Curriculum & Instruction,
Certification Officer, ATU Liaison to Cohort Schools, and Curriculum &
Instruction faculty;
·
Arts
& Sciences: faculty representatives
from Math, Science, English, Social Studies, Music and Art;
·
Associate
Vice President for Academic Affairs responsible for University Assessment Plan,
·
P-12
faculty and administration: representatives from each Cohort site at both
Elementary and Secondary levels,
·
Candidates,
and
·
Teacher
Education Alumni
Stakeholders have provided guidance to the assessment process at the
program, unit, and university levels.
Key elements in the life of the UAS sustain the continued involvement of
the task group of stakeholders:
·
The Unit
Assessment Committee (UAC) will continue to maintain leadership in implementing
and evaluating the Performance Evidence System.
·
The ATU
Liaison will maintain communication with Clinical Practice Instructors (CPIs)
at each of the Cohort Schools to focus the implementation and evaluation of
integral pieces of performance evidence.
·
Field-based
practitioners will provide on-the-job assessment of candidates’ application of
the knowledge, performances, and dispositions acquired in the unit’s programs.
·
The Unit
Portfolio Committee will continue to implement and evaluate the use of the Exit
Portfolio annually. Unit faculty, field
supervisors, and candidates will be trained and involved in its continuing
development, evaluation and refinement.
·
Unit faculty,
through the Peer Review Process, will provide evaluative assessment of
candidates’ performance and progress toward Unit and Program outcomes by
reviewing the results of the course evaluations, which highlight the
achievement of standards.
·
Employers
of graduates will have the opportunity to provide feedback related to the
graduates’ performance on the job.
·
The unit
will analyze Praxis III data annually.
·
The UAS is
organized through the offices of the Director of Teacher Education Student
Services and the Dean of Education with the assistance of a designated graduate
assistant.
·
Decisions about
the use of data collected are made collaboratively through the unit’s
governance system:
The UAS has been designed to ensure that the preparation of candidates
is anchored in credible and educationally vital evidence of the desired
understandings. The unit’s core values
and conceptual framework provide the skeletal support for delivery and
assessment of all programs within the unit.
The unit’s core values extend from, and the conceptual framework is
developed with, the involvement of the stakeholders. It is the result of the on-going review of
credible sources and incorporates what all candidates should know and be able
to do as described in:
University and unit mission statements
Relevant national and state standards for teachers including:
National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS)
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (INTASC)
NCATE Program Standards
International Society for Technology in
Education Standards (ISTE)
Content Cluster Group Standards
Arkansas P-12 content and developmental
standards
The unit’s conceptual framework reflects the thoughtful
consideration of all of the aforementioned sources. It is translated into specific preparation
programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels using the appropriate
recognized and research-based performance standards. Core values are organized
into four foundations and six unifying aspects that drive curriculum design in
each program (Exhibit). Course
objectives are derived from the conceptual framework and related
standards. Performance tasks and
assessment of performance are designed to fulfill course objectives and are,
then, directly related to the Conceptual Framework and appropriate standards
for performance.
The UAS demonstrates that Arkansas Tech is committed to an evolving and
comprehensive assessment strategy that stems from, then, and feeds into the
conceptual framework, Professionals for
the Future. The conceptual
framework was born of the missions of real world professionals, the university and
the unit, external professional
standards, a resulting unit vision, and the unit’s core values. The core values are central, then, to the
accomplishment of the unit’s mission and goals, and ensure that candidates will
receive the preparation in knowledge, disposition and performance necessary to
be successful in making a difference in student learning. They are powerful beliefs with transfer
shared by all faculty at all levels. They are lasting values, carrying faculty and
candidates beyond a program and throughout professional development. These core values strengthen the validity of
the measurement of desired candidate outcomes and the accomplishment of program
standards. The conceptual
framework elaborates core values into a structure that, then, guides the
development of programs at all levels, the delivery of courses within each
program, and the assessment of candidates’ performance in programs. The conceptual framework guides the
collection of multiple evidences emphasizing performance tasks and projects,
the documentation of these evidences, and the validation of the desired
knowledge, dispositions and performances necessary to successfully impact
student learning.
In
the 1998-1999 academic year, the Arkansas Department
of Education (ADE) promulgated an outline for the UAS to be designed and
implemented by institutions preparing professional personnel for schools. The institutional assessment systems were
components of a new, statewide performance-based system of licensure. The
The
development of the UAS was timely and aided in responding to changes in
licensure that required the revision and addition of programs and
reorganization of the unit. In
1999-2000, emphasis was placed on developing standards-based programs. The unit took advantage of this transition
period to refine the alignment from conceptual framework to learning objectives
to standards-based performance tasks and rubrics to programmatic assessment
plans. Programmatic and course matrices were constructed and reviewed to assure
that connections to the conceptual framework and relevant standards were
established clearly and that summative decision points supported the
development of performance. The standards-based curriculum was, then,
employed in the 2000-2001 academic year.
Use of performance tasks and rubrics, training of and
feedback to the unit, and continuing collaboration with stakeholders have
sustained continuous improvement across programs. In 2001-2002, emphasis was placed on
determining the quality of standards-based programs and program folios were
updated reflecting the use of standards-based performance assessment.
In
December of 2001 the University Assessment Committee was established and
received its charge. This committee
approved and distributed a standardized assessment plan form for all
departments in January of 2002 with implementation of identification of objectives
and measures by mid April, 2002. The
university’s plan for assessment extends from the assessment of academic
achievement which responds to two principal imperatives: 1) the mandate of the Arkansas General
Assembly (ACT 874 of 1993) for the assessment of general education at Arkansas’
institutions of higher education; and 2) the mandate of the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools that institutions develop, submit and
implement a plan to assess student academic achievement. The University assessment plan serves two
general purposes: 1) to provide the
University, its students and other constituencies with evidence that the
institution is achieving its objectives; and 2) to provide the University and
its various subdivisions with information that will guide efforts to strengthen
and improve academic programs. In
October of 2003 the University Assessment Committee approved having the second
half of the Program Assessment Form, actual results obtained and the use of
results, to be reported by November, 2003.
In the fall of 2003, the University Assessment Committee also approved
the addition of the assessment component to the university’s standardized
curriculum proposal. This was approved,
then, through the university standing committee structure. All of the unit’s programs prepared plans and
have submitted the annual report in conformance with the university’s
assessment program. The unit, then, refocused on refinement of
the conceptual framework and alignment and integration activities in the
2002-2003 academic year. In the fall of 2003 the University
Assessment Committee approved the addition of the assessment component to the
standardized curriculum proposal form for university standing committee action.
Additionally,
in 2001, NCATE disseminated newly designed, performance-based accreditation
standards. Assessment requirements
contained in its first two standards were studied by the UAC. Although NCATE’s requirements for a unit
assessment system, the university’s assessment model, the plan promulgated by
the ADE, and the unit’s plan necessitated by conceptual framework had several
components in common, it has been necessary revise and extend
the plan in progress, making additional adjustments throughout the system. Currently in the second year of
implementation, the unit is just beginning to understand the full impact on the
quality of the unit. Activities planned
through 2005 have been identified and will be implemented. The anticipated result of implementation is a
comprehensive assessment system that meets the requirements of the unit, the
university, the ADE, NCATE and fulfills the need for continuous and systematic
program development that leads to unit quality.
In summary, since 1999, a preliminary plan was established to guide
development of the UAS and significant strides have been taken to improve and
fully implement the UAS. The unit has
aligned pre-existing university, ADE, and NCATE requirements for assessments
and utilized the period of transition to refine the alignment of program
assessment plans with the conceptual framework.
All learning objectives for programs have been aligned to the conceptual
framework and exit competencies. Course
syllabi have been reviewed to assure that connections are clear and that performance
expectations are additive with increasing evidence for development of
Professionals for the Future. Many
activities in the plan have been accomplished.
Others will be completed in accordance with the projected timeline
contained in the UAS.
Improvements in technology and extensions of
the assessment system at the university and unit levels have improved
availability of, and access to, information.
Information is available to initially describe the candidate prior to
admission, or upon admission, to the professional development
phase/stage/program. Also available
through the University plan are results from the Arkansas Assessment of General
Education Test (AAGET), better known as the Rising Junior Exam (Act 874 passed
by legislature in 1993), which consists of three parts: 1) The Collegiate
Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), designed to assess foundational
academic skills in the areas of writing, reading, mathematics, science
reasoning, and critical thinking; 2) The Academic Profile, yields scores and
subscores for humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, reading, writing,
critical thinking, mathematics, and a total score; and 3) The Writing Sample,
an essay scored under the supervision of the Department of English and Foreign
Languages. Students must complete the
AAGET no earlier than accumulating 45 college-level credits and no later than
completing 60 college-level credits. The
The
UAS encompasses assessment of candidate’s performance at the program
level. This is highly appropriate for
the unit, as it consists of departments that offer a variety of
preparations. The UAS is an overall
management system that provides support to, and coordination of efforts of,
each program in order to insure that all programs have designed and implemented
comprehensive assessment practices that are of high quality. Programs in the unit are not all at the same
stage of development, and they have not achieved the same quality in their
assessment efforts, however, each program has developed assessment plans based
on the incorporated Program Assessment Form of ATU. These program assessment plans form the core
of the UAS. As these plans are
implemented, the UAS intends that the following features will be evident:
The UAS, in part or as a whole, has been on the agenda
of each meeting within the unit and will continue to be germane to all unit
business. Each meeting has provided some
small step forward in the desired dialogue, exchange, input, revision, and
refinement of the UAS. Stakeholder
representation varied within these meetings, but across all meetings all
intended stakeholders were reached.
There is now a network for collaborative development and a large pool of
committed participants in the system.
Development of Task
Groups of Stakeholders
Criteria
for selection of the listed participants included: 1) knowledge of teacher
education program; 2) demonstrated interest in, and commitment to, the process
of teacher preparation; 3) knowledge of candidate/graduate’s performance; 4)
vested interest in the improvement of student learning; and 5) knowledge of,
and appreciation for, the value of assessment to program quality.
Principal,
Principal,
Early Childhood Classroom Teacher Cohort: Debra Darr, Martha Eidson,
Cindy Harvey, Becky Manning, Trina Story, Jeanie Strasner, Delena Wilson, Rita
Halstead, Donna Milligan, Vickie Snoddy, Susan Yeager, and Bonnie Watkins
Middle Level Classroom Teacher Cohort:
Cheryl Laughinghouse and Joseph Rocconi
Secondary Classroom Teacher Cohort:
Pam Dixon, Paul Gray, Amber Hodges, Diane Little, Jennifer Redmond, Dana
Simmons, Marilyn Friga
o
Superintendent,
Principal,
o
Principal, Dardanelle Primary, Sue Ann Eichenberger
o
Asst Supt for Personnel and Support Services,
Early Childhood Classroom Teacher Cohort: Laurette Wright, Vickie Ellison, Krystal
Smith, Belinda Ward, Connie Copley, Sandra Hayes, Lana Neumeier, Felicia
Triplett
o
Director of Staff Development, Van Buren School District, Dr. Carol
Brody
UAS Is Integrated
into Existing Teacher Preparation Process
The
assessment plan, in part or as a whole, was on the agenda of each of the
following meetings. Each meeting
provided some small step forward in the desired dialogue, exchange, input,
revision, and refinement of the UAS.
Stakeholder representation varied within these meetings, but across all
meetings all intended stakeholders were reached. There is now a network for collaborative
development and a large pool of committed participants in the system.
1999-2000
Review and revision of the Conceptual Framework for the unit
Initiation of Title II data gathering and reporting
Approval of a consolidated outline of components that address the
assessment requirements of both the university and the Arkansas Dept of
Education
2000-2001
Establishment of University Assessment Committee
Review and revision of unit assessment plan
Establishment of program assessment plans that adhere to the new
outline of assessment requirements
Preparation of curriculum maps that display alignments of programs with
state licensure standards, the conceptual framework, and standards of
professional associations
Preparation of initial version of assessment matrices that provide
blueprints for assessing performances on key learning objectives
Initiate annual reporting to public of Title II performance results
July 31-Aug 4, 2000 Cohort Workshop
March 9, 2001 Peer Review Conducted
2001-2002
Initiate creation of structure for collaborating across units for the
undergraduate preparation of secondary candidates
Adoption of modified PATHWISE system for evaluating the performance of
candidates in internship in initial preparation programs
Review of program specific gateway/transition points
Preparation, review and approval of plans for assessment of candidates’
exit portfolios
All programs have approved assessment plans
Initiate review of assessment for candidates’ dispositions
Review new standards of specialized professional associations (SPAs)
and revise programs as necessary
Refine assessment matrices and development of rubrics for all
performance assessments
July 30-August 1, 2001 Cohort
Workshop
December, 2001 University
Assessment Committee